Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[goats]

Re: Coronavirus update

Interesting news.....


No evidence formally presented yet, it would be very early for that. But there has been a study sponsored by the Royal College of Paediatricians (although at the moment published via a blog) which cannot identify a single case of a child under 10 passing the virus on.

It seems to be a large study of thousands of cases across China and Europe. One example used in the media is the child of the first UK case, who had been in close contact with almost 200 people. Many had caught a common cold from him but none caught Covid, despite Covid being more contagious .

It is obviously too early to be sure, and more research is needed, but Switzerland are acting on it and allowing children close contact with grandparents.

If young kids could go to school and see family members at some point before too long, without increasing the risk of transfer, it would be massive for people and an economic boost.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Coronavirus update

I don't know if 100,000 tests a day is sufficient* but ensuring those who need testing are able to access it quickly, easily and accurately is an important part of getting out of lockdown, in my opinion, so this another small step in right direction. The next questions being are we reaching all who need it, how easy are they to admister and and how quickly and accurately do results come back. Has there been any information on this for me to read?

*I'm sure "the science" says it is now whereas one month ago "the science" said it wasn't. We still seem to be doing second worst in the world despite more notice than most so would be interesting to see how "the science" explains that.

Your second paragraph is so right. I've only tended to watch the bit where one of the scientists goes through the various slides in recent daily briefings, but I did catch one of them (Newton?) trying to explain why it was right not to have the sort of testing levels seen in the last few days back in March, but right to have them now yesterday. Now, it's entirely possible that the point he was trying to explain just went completely over my head and I missed it, but it sounded complete gobbledegook to me. Similarly, I note that, whereas a month ago, the slide showing deaths in various countries would talk of how we were "shadowing" Spain and/or Italy and were below others, now that it's showing us as second to America, we hear talk about how difficult it is to compare one country with another.

On the day you posted that link to the very good Guardian article, I also watched that night's very grim Newsnight and felt an increased sense of sympathy towards the Government because I do believe that they are sometimes in a position where the choice they are faced with is not right or wrong, but wrong or slightly less wrong. However, I also saw something online where foreign media and medical professionals were asked what they thought of how the UK was dealing with COVID19 - they were far from complimentary and the term "an example in how not to respond" was heard more than once.

That's the thing, while conceding that they are in a very tough situation in which they have had some things happen which can be rated as pluses, I fail to see how anyone can make a case for saying the UK Government has handled COVID19 well up to now.

[Jordi Culé]

Re: Coronavirus update

It was just a target the government set themselves

Luckily the other target in cheering people up through inflating figures has worked fantastically

[Heathblue]

Re: Coronavirus update

BBC News - Coronavirus: US authorises use of anti-viral drug Remdesivir

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52511270

[CCFCC3PO]

Re: Coronavirus update

BBC News - Coronavirus: US authorises use of anti-viral drug Remdesivir
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52511270

It seems effective if used early on in the diagnosis. It doesn't seem so effective if used later on in the diagnosis. It also has minimal impact on the death rate but, at least, it is something that opens up paths for further research.

[Pearcey3]

Re: Coronavirus update

Andrew Neil, BBC/The Spectator, is not impressed:

It’s pure propaganda and as usual Tory lies and deception are rewarded with headlines from the BBC and ITN that they hit this random 100,000 target. When in reality they fell well short. We get the Government we deserve. In our PM we have the cult of “Boris” a brazen, morally bankrupt, arrogant liar loved by huge swathes of our country.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

Your second paragraph is so right. I've only tended to watch the bit where one of the scientists goes through the various slides in recent daily briefings, but I did catch one of them (Newton?) trying to explain why it was right not to have the sort of testing levels seen in the last few days back in March, but right to have them now yesterday. Now, it's entirely possible that the point he was trying to explain just went completely over my head and I missed it, but it sounded complete gobbledegook to me. Similarly, I note that, whereas a month ago, the slide showing deaths in various countries would talk of how we were "shadowing" Spain and/or Italy and were below others, now that it's showing us as second to America, we hear talk about how difficult it is to compare one country with another.

On the day you posted that link to the very good Guardian article, I also watched that night's very grim Newsnight and felt an increased sense of sympathy towards the Government because I do believe that they are sometimes in a position where the choice they are faced with is not right or wrong, but wrong or slightly less wrong. However, I also saw something online where foreign media and medical professionals were asked what they thought of how the UK was dealing with COVID19 - they were far from complimentary and the term "an example in how not to respond" was heard more than once.

That's the thing, while conceding that they are in a very tough situation in which they have had some things happen which can be rated as pluses, I fail to see how anyone can make a case for saying the UK Government has handled COVID19 well up to now.

Two points on that, would you expect foreign medical professionals saying "Oh you did much better than my country?" I don't think so, and the second point is that if they had been roundly complimentary of Britain's response there is a high percentage chance they would never have been invited to be on the programme in the first place, so you won't hear them.

[Heathblue]

Re: Coronavirus update

It seems effective if used early on in the diagnosis. It doesn't seem so effective if used later on in the diagnosis. It also has minimal impact on the death rate but, at least, it is something that opens up paths for further research.

Yes, get the tests ramped up, with a positive test result, start the treatment ASAP, there will be lots of dough put into this to develop research further and probably,! the drug will become more effective, could become the standard paracetamol for flu goto drug for covid and no need for a Vaccination.

[blue matt]

Re: Coronavirus update

Luckily the other target in cheering people up through inflating figures has worked fantastically

Its ok, we have glass half empty and glass half full type of people

during this, i am staying on the positive side of the fence, so in this case, the governments fudging of the figures doesnt trouble me ( we should be used to the government misleading us, its hardly a new thing ), i can take the positive that we have in around a 1 month increased testing capacity from a few thousand to around the 100 thousand mark, which can only be a good thing,

maybe top your glass up a little

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Coronavirus update

Two points on that, would you expect foreign medical professionals saying "Oh you did much better than my country?" I don't think so, and the second point is that if they had been roundly complimentary of Britain's response there is a high percentage chance they would never have been invited to be on the programme in the first place, so you won't hear them.

You might think that, I saw something where the verdict on us was universally negative and I don't get why someone would automatically just take a patriotic line about their country when, in the case of those in healthcare, they would have specialised knowledge on the subject which means that they know full well, their country had not done well - this is not like a football match where you lose all objectivity when your team is involved.

[Jordi Culé]

Re: Coronavirus update

Its ok, we have glass half empty and glass half full type of people

during this, i am staying on the positive side of the fence, so in this case, the governments fudging of the figures doesnt trouble me ( we should be used to the government misleading us, its hardly a new thing ), i can take the positive that we have in around a 1 month increased testing capacity from a few thousand to around the 100 thousand mark, which can only be a good thing,

maybe top your glass up a little

I’m optimistic always. I’ve always thought though governments and political parties should just tell the public the truth.

There’s a difference between being optimistic, gullible or wilfully dumb.

My glass is full to the brim butt

[blue matt]

Re: Coronavirus update

I’m optimistic always. I’ve always thought though governments and political parties should just tell the public the truth.

There’s a difference between being optimistic, gullible or wilfully dumb.

My glass is full to the brim butt

good to know

Gullible or wilfully dumb would mean that people dont know that the government fudges figures and stretches the truth, most know that and accept it, calling them out on this matter seems rather a waste of effort when we could be celebrating the fact that the testing capacity has increased massively and we all agree thats a great achievement

[Heisenberg]

Re: Coronavirus update

good to know

Gullible or wilfully dumb would mean that people dont know that the government fudges figures and stretches the truth, most know that and accept it, calling them out on this matter seems rather a waste of effort when we could be celebrating the fact that the testing capacity has increased massively and we all agree thats a great achievement

I really can't understand this viewpoint. The only reason the Govt can get away with this shit is because people like you say "just accept that they lie". No. That is a very dangerous way of thinking and they should be held to account for every lie they tell, otherwise, when do you know what to believe, Matt?

[Jordi Culé]

Re: Coronavirus update

good to know

Gullible or wilfully dumb would mean that people dont know that the government fudges figures and stretches the truth, most know that and accept it, calling them out on this matter seems rather a waste of effort when we could be celebrating the fact that the testing capacity has increased massively and we all agree thats a great achievement

I’m going to disagree with you here butt.

Any political parties, government or organisations who “fudge figures...” do so with the intention of distorting information in order to present to the public. It’s called lying and it’s used to disguise actual performance and avoid any accountability.

If you’re personally happy with people pulling the wool over your eyes and then sticking a brush up your arse, who am I to argue? Enjoy your half full glass butt

[xsnaggle]

Re: Coronavirus update

You might think that, I saw something where the verdict on us was universally negative and I don't get why someone would automatically just take a patriotic line about their country when, in the case of those in healthcare, they would have specialised knowledge on the subject which means that they know full well, their country had not done well - this is not like a football match where you lose all objectivity when your team is involved.

No it isn't but if the person speaking is in any position of authority or such in his country and the powers that be see him telling the world that his own country is not as good as UK, thereby implying they should have done better, then he might consider that the people who keep him in said position might not take kindly to it.
But as with the first part of your response, we read something in the media and tend to subconciously accept or dismiss it depending on our pre-conceived notions about the subject. I know you always try to be objective and so do I, but we do it subconciously (some consiously) never the less. We only read the papers that suit the way we think, we only access the web sites we think are reporting honestly in line with our understanding of a topic and so on and so on. Anyone who says that they catagorically never ever do this is either kidding themselves or trying to kid everyone else.